VI.

Not content with animadverting the statement that "assertions and miracles are spurious coin," the good priest inserts the word "all" before "assertions." Were the Father's self-appointed task to construe and not to misconstrue, he, as the commentator of Ingersoll, would have inserted mere in place of "all." In other words, “mere assertion is not proof." Ingersoll." Reason is the result of all experience."

This is incorrect, but quite as true as the Father's dictum, that "mind and reason are identical." Imagination is as much an attribute of mind. as reason, yet imagination is not synonymous with mind. "Reason," says the Father, "is the soul or intellect itself in conscious action." Does not the soul act in its loves and affectional longings? Yet who will say that love is the synonym of reason, or of mind? Certainly no father who, in vengeance, chases an eloping couple!

Here we gladly leave the field of Metaphysics, always unsatisfying to popular desire, and turn to that book with which a priest of the infallible church is supposed to be conversant. This brings us to the real subject and substance of the controversy as raised by Mr. Ingersoll: "Is all of the Bible inspired?"

In other words, were the writers of the Old and New Testament so illuminated and controlled by the Spirit of God that they were enabled to write, and did write, the several books of the Bible, true as to all matters of fact, morals and doctrines therein set forth? To this question we now address ourselves, following, as we must, the path marked out to us by our guide, the Father.

Father Lambert on the Esthetic-Art Culture-Painting and Sculpture-Jews as an Art Cultivating People Contrasted with Greeks, Romans, etc.Father's Definition of Art too Contracted-" The Roving Lecturer."

We must now follow the Father into the regions of æsthetic, where he luxuriates in much that is beautiful, states some things that are true. Art studies are deligh even to those who are not proficients in art culture; and s may be thankful that if they cannot create, they may, at l wonder and adore.

Ingersoll.-"In passing it may be well enough to say the commandment, Thou shalt not make unto thee graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in hea above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the wa under the earth,' was the absolute death of art; and that until after the destruction of Jerusalem was there a Heb painter or sculptor."

Here it is alleged that the above command was a prohibi of two arts-painting and sculpture. I do not think it so intended, however the Jews may have interpreted it. would seem that a fair criticism would construe the word limiting the making of works of art in so far only as t How were intended to be used for devotional purposes. brew fastidiousness may have construed the prohibition I not able to say. But the Father has done little to disp

the charge that the arts referred to were dead as to the Hebrew race until after the destruction of Jerusalem, by showing that God gave specific instructions for the creation of works of art for the adornment of his own Temple. The Master may well permit his servant to provide a sumptuous banquet for himself, while the servant is fed upon the crumbs from the Master's table. What matters it, then, to the argument that exceptions only are given, qualified by their own nature, and made conspicuous by divine command ?

Lambert." Who made the golden calf?" etc.

How the calf would stand as a work of art if made to-day no one can tell, but is it probable that as slaves in Egypt, or as dwellers in a wilderness, the Hebrews had time or opportunity to study art? So far we must excuse them for a want of knowledge which they could not obtain. If God by miracle endowed special sculptors with artistic skill, for his own purpose, such endowment goes not to the credit of the Jews as an art cultivating people. Of the Temple, etc., if rightly informed by Scripture, God was the draughtsman.

But who among the Jews, after the making of the images referred to, and the building of the Temple for religious uses, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, ever carved a piece of statuary, or depicted on canvas a figure or scene worthy of intellectual worship? And yet, centuries before Titus marched on Jerusalem, works of unrivalled merit in both the useful and æsthetic arts were being executed by Greeks, Romans, and other peoples.

The Father kindly treats us to a definition or description of art, in regard to its various subjects and manifestations.

Lambert.—" From what you say about art, it is evident that you do not know its meaning and scope. You limit it to sculpture and painting, because you imagine these two forms of art are forbidden by the commandment. Art is broader

than that. I will give you a definition of art, which will, if you study it well, prevent you in future from showing your ears [softly, Father] to quiet, thoughtful men, who have gone somewhat deeper than you have into philosophy and theology. Art is the expression or manifestation of the beautiful. It is an appeal by symbolism to the senses. It treats of color and form, which are an appeal to vision; letters and other outlines, which are an appeal to the intellect through the medium of sight; vibratory motion, which appeals to the sense of hearing-called music; tangible forms, which talk to the sense of feeling; and combinations, which appeal to the taste."

Our conception of art embraces more than the Father's definition includes. Not only is it an "expression of the beautiful," but of the sublime, the pathetic, the devout, the grotesque, and the ludicrous. Its subjects are not only painting, sculpture, poetry, and music, but history, oratory, and histrionic representation as well. In this view of art how stood the ancient Jews as compared with the most civilized nations of their time?

Almost everything which can be denoted artistic among them related to religious sentiment and ceremony. And these works, it is claimed, were directly inspired by God; if so, they were not the result of artistic culture.

We would not detract from the merit, nor dim the glory, if we could, of the many beautiful and sublime effusions which the Old Testament affords us. But what of Greece, with her orders of architecture, with their beautiful elaborations and adornments, that have been perpetuated by studious imitation in the grandest edifices of the present day; with her sculptors, who made the cold marble breathe and speak; her statuary, the few fragments of which are left us being regarded, by the best artists of the present, as not only worthy of imitation but almost of adoration?

Yet her great masters lived centuries before the light of man's redemption flashed from Calvary. So also of her poets; as witness Homer, the grandest of epic bards: Pindar, whom critics pronounce the prince of lyric verse; Sophocles, Æschylus, and Euripides, who, though most of their writings are lost, have left us enough to justify the literary world in ranking them with the masters of dramatic composition. What orators ever eclipsed Pericles and Demosthenes, and what historians Herodotus and Thucydides? The truth is, no nation . or religion can justly claim a monopoly of genius. When its sacred fire is kindled on the altar of the human mind, be it in pagan or Christian lands, its light will be manifest, and future ages will pay tribute to its power.

Christianity has had over eighteen hundred years of prayer and progress. During the first twelve centuries there was no revival in Europe of the art of painting. Before that time Byzantine artists were employed to execute their ever-repeated types, which scarcely deserved the name of paintings. Until A. D., 1221 art slept in Italy as in a sepulchre. Then Guido began to divide the light from the darkness; and after him a constellation of genius arose, to dazzle the world with its brilliancy. Among its brightest orbs were Raphael, Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Titian, and Correggio-all members of the same school, and all superbly great. Four hundred years have passed since the latest of these great men was born, and yet we ask in vain for those on whom their mantles fell. Their glory was perpetuated in their works, not by those who would fain have emulated their excellence.

It is true that religion inspired their efforts and directed their aim. Their themes, for artistic effect, were grand beyond compare, and urged them on to higher and still higher conceptions which, in the divine crucible of art, were crystallized into realities. All honor to such men of whatever creed or